@kennyr,
I hope that you don't misunderstand this, but based on your attitude about this stuff, it would be very difficult for anyone to hire you, and I'll tell you why.
Job applications and the like are very much miniature psychological evaluations. There are millions of people out there who are qualified to do the actual job (any job) that you're applying for, but there's a hell of a lot more to it than the basic qualifications. If there weren't, there would be zero unemployment.
For example, a prospective employer needs to know, are you an arse or a fun-loving guy with hightened family morals? Did you waste your youth building plastic models (if the job was model making, that would be a great thing) or did you spend your school years doing extra-curricular school activities such as high-school politics (good for political or public relations positions) or the debate team (good for sales and political positions)?
Are you rude and abrasive? Are you a slacker or a ass-buster? Remember... Work places are many people crammed into a small area for the express purpose of creating or performing a task. If you don't get along well with your peers, or you think you're above them, or whatever, that disrupts the entire team.
Imagine if you will, you and "Polyhead" both applying for the same job. Imagine that like you, "Polyhead" has all of the qualifications to do the job itself (as do thousands of other people). The difference between hired and not is very often how well you answer those stupid questions.
The biggest question in the mind of the employer is, "which of these two people do I believe would best represent you and your company to the customer"? If you both apply for the same job, and both have similar basic qualifications, how else would you expect a prospective employer make a logical choice?
In most cases, the ONLY way to do that would be to ask stupid questions on an application. In 1985, things were different and interviewers could use their "gut instinct" during the interview to decide who was best suited for a position. Nowadays, it's quite possible that someone might sue a company for not hiring them, claiming racial, gender, sexual preference, or whatever discrimination. If you're a company and you have something on paper, you can prove it was not based on anything personal whatsoever. Otherwise, it can get really, really messy.
In short, those who answer the stupid questions well are worth considering. Those who {bleep} about the stupid questions are not.
Answering the questions well depends on your ability to evaluate the position itself. Your ability to answer these stupid questions well reflects 110% on your ability to both think on the fly as well as to be a professional. After all, answering a bunch of stupid questions is probably the easiest thing you'd EVER be asked to do by a boss after you were employed later.
Your basic qualifications are not even really relevant at that point, because when they're interviewing you, they already KNOW that you're technically proficient (otherwise why bother with an interview)?
It's really that simple, and the person doing the interview is normally a very good judge of character. While they do make mistakes, they can usually tell in the first three minutes whether you're going to work well with their other employees or not.
It's all just a game, but if you want to get paid, you have to play it.
Wayne
